News Feeds

First of its kind financing platform has room for more giant solar and battery hybrids, now the most readily accessible tech for big energy users wanting to clean up.

The post Largest solar-battery financing deal just the tip of the iceberg, as bankers pile into fashionable hybrids appeared first on Renew Economy.

Children bear the consequences of today’s major crises more than most, yet their concerns and experiences remain largely invisible in political life. A childist revolution calls for transforming the political space to cultivate a deeper sense of our social and natural interdependence – including fully democratising democracies through ageless suffrage. 

This article is part of the Green European Journal’s upcoming print edition on demographic futures, out in early June. Subscribe now and get it delivered straight to your door.

Democracies face crises when populations lose confidence in their ability to address fundamental concerns – as is usually the case in periods of rapid industrialisation, runaway inequality, economic depression, mass migration, and war. During such times, they often backslide into authoritarian appeals, but tend eventually to evolve new democratic norms and practices. 

The worldwide crisis of democracy today revolves around issues that centrally concern one of the most disempowered social groups: the third of humanity who are children. It is children above all who face the greatest impacts of climate change, both immediately and in the long term. Children in rich and poor countries alike suffer disproportionate poverty because of global neoliberalism. Young people die in outsized numbers from civilian-targeted modern warfare and terrorism. And they are hit hardest by the ways that new digital technologies manipulate information and foster technological addiction. 

However, children remain largely invisible in political life. Indeed, it is this very invisibility that keeps children’s issues at the margins of democratic policymaking.  

The rise of childism 

The past couple of decades have seen the rise of a movement among academics and activists to respond to these democratic and childhood realities under the umbrella of childism. Childism is a critical approach to societies similar to feminism, anti-racism, decolonialism, and the like. It seeks to empower children and acknowledge their concerns and experiences by transforming historically ingrained assumptions and structures. Its aim is to reconstruct social norms to make them genuinely age-inclusive. 

The word “childism” was coined in the early 2000s in academic literature rooted in the then-emerging field of childhood studies, which seeks to understand children’s agency and experiences as children rather than as developing adults. In the 1990s, the term was used briefly in literary studies to refer to a practice of reading like a child. More recently, it has also been used in a negative sense, akin to sexism and racism. But the predominant meaning in scholarship – and now also in social activism – is in its positive sense of children’s empowerment. 

The central problem that childism addresses is a deeply rooted adultism: the assumption that the adult is the measure of the human. Adultism is the often forgotten side of patriarchy, the historical power of the “pater” or father, which is not only gendered but also aged. Like sexism, adultism is deeply embedded in our histories, cultures, and languages. Adultism in particular asserts a binary opposition between supposedly rational and independent adults on the one hand, and supposedly irrational and dependent children on the other. In this way, it divides social relations in everything from families and communities to human rights and law. 

 Adultism is the often forgotten side of patriarchy, the historical power of the “pater” or father, which is not only gendered but also aged.

Children themselves are already practising an implicit childism. Young climate protesters are demanding age inclusivity in environmental policy. Child labour union activists are calling for recognition for non-adult work. Youth are fighting for schools free of gun violence. Transgender children are pushing their communities to change how they think about gender identity. Children and youth in the dozens of countries with child and youth parliaments are pressing for children’s perspectives on safe streets, access for people with disabilities, and education reform. 

Children’s suffrage 

As marginalised groups over history have found, however, the ultimate right to political inclusion is the right to vote. Suffrage does not solve all problems, but it does confer on those possessing it the status of first-class citizens with equal political dignity. It is the right to participate in the process of forming rights. This is why non-landowners, the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and women fought so hard to achieve it. And it is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights call, without any type of qualification, for “universal and equal suffrage”.  

Children have been fighting for suffrage since at least the 1990s. They have done so in campaigns and legal action by groups like We Want the Vote and KRÄTZÄ in Germany, the National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) in the US, Young Pirates of Europe (YPE), and Green Youth. Adults have joined them with academic and policy support, including through initiatives like the Children’s Voting Colloquium, Amnesty International UK, the Freechild Institute, the National Association of Large Families , and the Child Rights International Network (CRIN). What is more, children and adults have sued governments for ageless suffrage in Germany, California and Massachusetts in the United States, Sweden, and Canada.

The childist argument for ageless suffrage is that it is necessary for the wellbeing of both children and democracies. Children themselves would finally have their lives and perspectives taken just as seriously by policymakers, whose jobs would no longer rely solely on pressure from adults. And democracies would benefit from the full range of the people’s ideas, thus making better-informed decisions. 

A matter of competence?  

The main objection to children’s suffrage has historically been that children lack voting competence. People under the age of maturity are thought to be deficient in democratic thinking skills, knowledge, and independence, and to be too open to manipulation. And they are presumed to lack the experience and understanding needed to contribute to difficult decisions about complex political matters like war, health policy, and immigration. 

But these presumptions misunderstand both democracy and childhood. Working backwards from the aims of democracy, voting competence consists in the ability to give voice to political views. The purpose of democratic voting is not to place decisions in the hands of those with certain types of knowledge, but to hold elected representatives accountable to the people impacted by their decisions. Anyone should be included in the vote who wishes to have a say in what policymakers may do. 

Barring children from voting is, in reality, a form of systemic discrimination. It holds them to a standard of voting competence that is not applied to the rest of the population.

If voting competence is properly understood, children have much more of it – and adults much less – than commonly thought. It is hard to deny democratic capacities to the millions of children who march for climate change policies, fight against racism, or participate in children’s parliaments, child labour unions, or any number of other political organisations. Children worldwide discuss politics at the dinner table, read or watch the news, and hold diverse opinions about current events. There is no magical stage of neurological development at which the capacity to have political views suddenly arises. It is a general capacity of anyone aware of their larger world. 

This capacity of children to participate in democratic life is already legally recognised in Articles 12, 13, and 15 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These guarantee children the rights to “express [their] views freely in all matters affecting the child”, “freedom of expression” without unnecessary restriction, and “freedom of association”. All of these rights are violated when children are banned from exercising their democratic capacities. 

Likewise, adults exhibit very wide ranges of democratic skill, knowledge, and susceptibility to influence. Adults have the right to vote regardless of ignorance, thoughtlessness, and openness to manipulation. They retain this right even if they suffer from severe cognitive impairment, mental disability, or dementia. History shows that adults frequently make terrible voting decisions. Furthermore, no adult has a deep understanding of all the matters they must vote upon, from economic statistics to military capacities, health innovations, top secret information, legal precedents, and much else. 

Barring children from voting is, in reality, a form of systemic discrimination. It holds them to a standard of voting competence that is not applied to the rest of the population. The European Court of Human Rights defines discrimination as “differential treatment in comparable situations without an objective or reasonable justification”. Adult-only voting excludes children as a class of citizens for reasons outside the objective requirements of voting itself. 

Stronger democracies 

But the most important reason to give children the right to vote is that it would improve life for children and adults and strengthen democracies.  

Children themselves would live in political environments that are required to take their interests into account centrally instead of peripherally. Currently, they cannot vote politicians out of office, which means authorities are not truly incentivised to take children’s experiences and concerns seriously. Children may be objects of democratic beneficence, but like adults, they also need to be treated as subjects with democratic agency.  

If children could vote, they would likely pressure politicians, for example, to finally take the climate emergency seriously, fight child poverty, regulate digital media, invest in meaningful education reform, attend to lifelong healthcare, and create safer streets and greener spaces. They would also have greater recourse to fight social discrimination, such as social media bans, age curfews, exclusion from divorce proceedings, corporal punishment, school discipline, issues with access to medical care, and much more. 

Granting children the right to vote would also benefit adults. Everyone would gain from better climate policies. Parents would be helped by children’s greater economic support. Teachers would be empowered by education policies that better respond to children’s actual lives and experiences. Doctors would find greater resources for child healthcare and research. And business leaders would hire from a better-educated workforce.  

Moreover, democracy itself would be strengthened by becoming more fully responsive to the people’s actual lives. Policymakers would find themselves equally beholden to all instead of just some of their constituents. Democratic leaders could make clearer decisions with – so to speak – a third more pixels added to their policymaking screen. And democracies would make choices about war, spending, and judicial reform in more inclusively informed ways. 

What is more, children’s suffrage could provide the needed antidote to today’s slide of democracies into authoritarianism. The right to vote for all would undercut the assumption that some are natural rulers over others. And it would eliminate the problem of citizens spending the first quarter of their lives being told that their views do not count, which opens citizens to simplistic authoritarian appeals. Instead of looking to father figures, democracies would more likely turn to broad-minded defenders of human rights. 

Children may be objects of democratic beneficence, but like adults, they also need to be treated as subjects with democratic agency.  

Systemic inclusion 

Childism calls for not only new understandings of voting rights but also new electoral practices. Suffrage movements typically shift how voting actually takes place. We have come a long way from landowning men choosing representatives in taverns.  

A good first step is to lower the voting age. In countries that have lowered the national voting age to 16, children have been shown to turn out in higher numbers for elections than young adults and to retain higher voting rates into adulthood. They have also moved policymakers to include more child-friendly interests. However, from a childist perspective, lowering voting ages does not go far enough. It still only enfranchises children who are thought to have achieved adult-like competencies, whereas genuine democracies need to move beyond adultism. 

There are several different proposals for ageless voting rights, but my own is for what I call proxy-claim voting. Under this proposition, all citizens would have a proxy vote from birth to death, which can be used by their legal guardian – a parent, caretaker, or next of kin. This proxy vote would most likely be used on behalf of infants, young children, cognitively impaired children and adults, adults with significant disabilities or health issues, and elderly persons with dementia. But all citizens would, at the same time, have the right to claim the exercise of their vote on their own behalf. Whenever a citizen desired to vote independently, regardless of their age or condition, they could claim their right to do so. 

Some might object that a proxy-claim right to vote would advantage larger families, but in reality, it would advantage the children themselves in these families who deserve their own equal representation. Others might find proxy voting fundamentally undemocratic, yet it already exists in most countries for impaired (or even just travelling) adults, so why not also for the youngest children? Some do not think voting is all that powerful anyway, but is it fair or just to ban one group even from the choice to participate? 

Childism calls for children’s systemic inclusion and empowerment. It suggests, just like first-wave feminism, that the right to vote is a fundamental human right. But suffrage is only a first step. Childism sets in motion a systemic critique of societies’ adultistic biases across law, policy, culture, and family. It insists that children are not second-class citizens but central to infusing societies with humanity. 

If consumers use batteries mainly to reduce exposure, what does that mean for a grid that increasingly needs flexible participation?

The post When the grid and home batteries teach consumers to withdraw from the market appeared first on Renew Economy.

A Queensland company is proposing a small solar-battery, with sheep grazing under the panels, saying the landowner wants to use land too barren to farm.

The post Farmer seeks solar: Queensland developer says PV plans will help rejuvenate barren land appeared first on Renew Economy.

Australia is betting on millions of household energy devices to help run the grid, but what happens if they can’t properly talk to each other?

The post SwitchedOn podcast: Consumer energy devices aren’t talking to each other – and it’s a problem appeared first on Renew Economy.

The mining industry is burning even more diesel for the same amount of production as they have to dig digger for hard to cut coal, and lack of action on electric options.

The post Miners are burning a lot more diesel than four years ago, just for same amounts of now hard-to-get coal appeared first on Renew Economy.

The number of new coal-fired power plants built around the world hit a “10-year high” in 2025, even as the global coal fleet generated less electricity, amid a “widening disconnect” in the sector. 

That is according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM), which finds that the world added nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity in 2025, the equivalent of roughly 100 large coal plants.

It adds that 95% of the new coal plants were built in India and China. 

Yet GEM says that the amount of electricity generated with coal fell by 0.6% in 2025 – with sharp drops in both China and India – as the fuel was displaced by record wind and solar output, among other factors. 

The report notes that there have been previous dips in output from coal power and there could still be ups – as well as downs – in the near term.

For example, nearly 70% of the coal-fired units scheduled to retire globally in 2025 did not do so, due to postponements triggered by the 2022 energy crisis and policy shifts in the US.

However, GEM says that the underlying dynamics for coal power have now fundamentally shifted, as the cost of renewables has fallen and low usage hits coal profitability.

China and India dominate growth

In 2025, coal-capacity growth hit a 10-year high, with 97 gigawatts (GW) of new power plants being added, according to GEM.

(Capacity refers to the potential maximum power output, as measured in GW, whereas generation refers to power actually generated by the assets over a period of time, measured in gigawatt hours, GWh.)

This is the highest level since 2015 when 107GW began operating, as shown in the chart below. This makes 2025 the second-highest level of additions on record. 

Coal-fired power capacity that began operation each year from 2000 to 2025, GW. Source: Global Energy Monitor.

The majority of this growth came from China and India, which added 78GW and 10GW, respectively, against 9GW from all other countries. 

Yet GEM points out that, even as coal capacity in China grew by 6%, the output from coal-fired power plants actually fell 1.2%. This means that each power plant would have been running less often, eroding its profitability. Similarly, capacity in India grew by 3.8%, while generation fell by 2.9%.

China and India had accounted for 87% of new coal-power capacity that came into operation in the first half of 2025. The shift up to 95% in the year as a whole highlights how increasingly just those two countries dominate the sector, GEM says.

Christine Shearer, project manager of GEM’s global coal plant tracker, said in a statement: 

“In 2025, the world built more coal and used it less. Development has grown more concentrated, too – 95% of coal plant construction is now in China and India, and even they are building solar and wind fast enough to displace it.”

Both China and India saw solar and wind meet most or all of the growth in electricity demand last year. 

Analysis for Carbon Brief last year showed that, in the first six months of 2025 alone, a record 212GW of solar was added in China, helping to make it the nation’s single-largest source of clean-power generation, for example. 

However, the country continues to propose new coal plants. In 2025, a record 162GW of capacity was newly proposed for development or reactivated, according to GEM. This brought the overall capacity under development in the country to more than 500GW. 

China’s 15th “five-year plan”, covering 2026-2030, had pledged to “promote the peaking” of coal use, while a more recent pair of policies introduced stricter controls on local governments’ coal use. 

For its part, in India some 28GW of new coal capacity was newly proposed or reactivated last year, bringing the total under development to 107.3GW and under-construction capacity to 23.5GW.

The Indian government is planning to complete 85GW of new coal capacity in the next seven years, even as clean-energy expansion reaches levels that could cover all of the growth in electricity demand. 

Outside of China and India, GEM says that just 32 countries have new coal plants under construction or under development, down from 38 in 2024. 

Countries that have dropped plans for new coal in 2025 include South Korea, Brazil and Honduras, it says. GEM notes that the latter two mean that Latin America is now free from any new coal-power proposals. 

This means that both electricity generation from coal and the construction of new coal-fired power plants are increasingly concentrated in just a few countries, as the chart below shows.

Top 10 countries for total operating coal power-plant capacity (left) and for newly added capacity (right), GW. Source: Global Energy Monitor.

Indonesia’s coal fleet grew by 7% in 2025 to 61GW, with a quarter of the new capacity tied to nickel and aluminium processing, according to GEM. 

Turkey – which is gearing up to host the COP31 international climate summit in November – has just one coal-plant proposal remaining, down from 70 in 2015. 

The amount of new coal capacity that started to operate in south-east Asia fell for the third year in a row in 2025, according to GEM. 

Countries in south Asia that rely on imported energy are increasingly looking to other technologies to protect themselves from fossil-fuel shocks, such as Pakistan, which is rapidly deploying solar, states the GEM report.

In Africa, plans for new coal capacity are concentrated in Zimbabwe and Zambia, the report shows, with the two countries accounting for two-thirds of planned development in the region.

‘Persistence of policies’

While new coal plants are still being built and even more are under development, GEM notes that the global electricity system is undergoing rapid changes.

Crucially, the growth of cheap renewable energy means that new coal plants do not automatically translate into higher electricity generation from coal.

Without rising output from coal power, building new plants simply results in the coal fleet running less often, further eroding its economics relative to wind and solar power.

Indeed, GEM notes that electricity generation from coal fell globally in 2025. Moreover, a recent report by thinktank Ember found that renewable energy overtook coal in 2025 to become the world’s largest source of electricity.

GEM notes that coal generation may fluctuate in the near term, in particular due to potential increases in demand driven by higher gas prices. 

It adds that gas price shocks, such as the one triggered by the Iran war, can cause temporary reversals in the longer-term shift away from coal.

According to Carbon Brief analysis, at least eight countries announced plans to either increase their coal use or review plans to transition away from coal in the first month of the Iran war. However, a much-discussed “return to coal” is expected to be limited.

GEM’s report highlights that global fossil-fuel shocks can have an impact on the phase out of coal capacity over several years.

In the EU, for example, 69% of planned retirements did not take place in 2025, due to postponements that began in the 2022-23 energy crisis triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to the report. Countries across the bloc chose to retain their coal capacity amid gas supply disruptions and concerns about energy security.

Yet coal-fired power generation in the bloc is now more than 40% below 2022 levels. Again, this highlights that coal capacity does not necessarily translate into electricity generation from coal, with its associated CO2 emissions.

Overall, GEM notes that “repeated exposure to fossil-fuel price volatility is as likely to accelerate the shift toward clean energy as it is to delay it”.

GEM’s Shearer says in a statement: 

“The central challenge heading into 2026 is not the availability of alternatives, but the persistence of policies that treat coal as necessary even as power systems move increasingly beyond it.”

In the US, 59% of planned retirements in 2025 did not happen, according to GEM. This was due to government intervention to keep ageing coal plants online. 

Five coal-power plants have been told to remain online through federal “emergency” orders, for example, even as the coal fleet continues to face declining competitiveness. 

Keeping these plants online has cost hundreds of millions of dollars and helped drive an annual increase in the average US household electricity prices of 7%, according to GEM. 

Despite such measures, Trump has overseen a larger fall in coal-fired power capacity than any other US president, according to Carbon Brief analysis. 

Meanwhile, according to new figures from the US Energy Information Administration, solar and wind both set new records for energy production in 2025.

Despite challenges with policy and wider fossil-fuel impacts, the underlying dynamic has shifted, says GEM, as “clean energy becomes more competitive and widely deployed” around the world. 

It adds that this raises the prospect of “a more sustained decoupling between coal-capacity growth and generation, particularly if clean-energy deployment continues at current rates”.

Analysis: Trump has overseen larger coal decline than any other US president

Coal

|

12.02.26

Analysis: Coal power drops in China and India for first time in 52 years after clean-energy records

China energy

|

13.01.26

IEA: Declining coal demand in China set to outweigh Trump’s pro-coal policies

Coal

|

17.12.25

Guest post: China and India account for 87% of new coal-power capacity so far in 2025

China energy

|

27.08.25

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_6bf27e867b7b6a742135442872019748 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post New coal plants hit ‘10-year’ global high in 2025 – but power output still fell appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently released a comprehensive report highlighting actions taken to date to restore the Great Salt Lake ecosystem, along with several policy...

Nebraska State Senators Terrell McKinney & Ashlei Spivey Invite You To Attend: 

A NORTH OMAHA TOWN HALL MEETING

The town hall will feature the Senators’ work this past session and serve as an opportunity for the community to ask questions.

The town hall will also feature a discussion on LB 1111, a data center bill sponsored by Senators McKinney, Spivey and Machaela Cavanaugh, which was also supported by Bold Nebraska, that was incorporated in LB1010 and passed into law. The law holds data centers accountable and provides for transparency that no other state has been able to pass. Bold Founder Jane Kleeb will join the Senators for the data center discussion. 

• WHEN: Thursday, June 11, 2026, 6:00 – 7:30 p.m.
• WHERE: Nelson Mandela Elementary School, 6316 N. 30th Street, Omaha, NE
• RSVP: Let us know you are coming!

*The event is free and open to the public. Refreshments will be provided.*

Bold’s Energy Builders Project provides education, training, legal, communications, and organizing support to rural communities that want to see more clean energy built in their towns. BoldEnergyBuilders.us 

 

Lizzie Suarez grew up in Miami and watched the city morph into what it is today: a billionaire’s playground. She works with Miami Workers Center, “as a place where people are finding community and finding answers to the questions of their lives.” She’s also a cultural organizer grappling to answer the question, what exactly is a cultural organizer?

 

The following is from our conversation on March 6th, 2026. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

~

Mark Chavez

What was life like growing up in Miami? 

Lizzie Suarez

I had a great experience growing up in Miami. I was fortunate enough to be involved in extracurricular activities, like sports, got into the arts outside of school and I had an experience of both being in public school and private school in Miami. As I got older, a lot of my experience I can see through a more political lens: the experiences I had with, you know, peers growing up. I was a teenager when Trayvon Martin was murdered and experiencing that as a kid and trying to make sense of the story. And then as I got older, witnessing uprisings and resistance across the United States, just following the news and being online. And so I would say it’s been a really eye-opening experience and a very unique experience. Miami is such a unique place compared to many parts of the United States, but I would also say I was like most kids when you get lost in childhood classmate drama and all that. 

MC

What has changed about Miami over your lifetime? 

LS

A lot has changed. Miami is a place that has always, since its founding, as the city of Miami proper and the region, a place that was created by Indigenous and Black people of the Caribbean for outsiders and for wealthy northerners. And so in that sense, not much has changed about Miami, but because the people who govern Miami have such a commitment to novelty, to newness, to the new next best shiny thing our city really changes, I would say, every five years almost. Every five years there’s a new influx of people, whether it be from New York or California, especially post pandemic. 

Now, most recently in the past few months, there’s been like six billionaires who have announced that they’re moving to Miami, one of them being Peter Thiel, moving Palantir here. And so, in the past six or seven years, a lot of my friends, people that I’ve known, have had to leave Miami due to rising cost of living. A lot of people in my circle that I’ve organized with or been in community with, many of them are not from here, but nonetheless, they have chosen to call this place home and chosen to help make it better. 

All that to say, although there’s new people, migration is just part of life. And so there’s all sorts of different people here, different nationalities, different states, but I think more and more, there’s just more concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and working class people are feeling it the most. 

MC

Can you share how that ties into your work? How is Miami Workers Center borne out of, related to, responding to that increased disparity of wealth in the city. 

LS

I was actually just reading some notes and reflections from members from a convening that we had this past weekend. And the prompt was, who are we? When you think about us as an organization, who are we? 

One of our members put, “we are those who have been forgotten about, the disabled, working class people, people who can work, people who can’t work, people who are single parents with young kids, people who are navigating our complex immigration legal system.” 

And so I think about the organization, Miami Workers Center, as a place where people are finding community and finding answers to the questions of their lives. Can I afford to live here? Is this a safe place to live? Can I build roots here? How can I afford to live here? How can I find the resources I need to live a life of dignity?

And yeah… I think the organization is like a quest to answer the question, who was Miami for? We know, like I just shared, it has been a place for the rich, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Just as it was made, it can be unmade and made again. 

MC

That’s so beautiful. You all were involved in launching the first worker-owned cleaning business in Miami. Can you share, what is that? And in responding to that, also share a little bit about what is a cooperative and why are they so important? 

LS

The Miami Cleaning Cooperative is a new business, a new worker cooperative founded by members of the Miami Workers Center in collaboration with, and supported by, Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida and Catalyst Miami. 

For the past about two to three years now, members of that cooperative have been part of an incubation process. So they first started with learning what a cooperative is. It’s a different kind of way of doing business, as opposed to standard business practices where there’s a CEO at the top and everyone under them doesn’t get to make the decisions that impact their lives, whether it be economically or just the way that the business is governed. They are making the same amount of money, and they have learned about cooperatives being a more collaborative, generative kind of economics where the work is shared, there’s equal say, or the workers who make the business run get to set up the structures that they feel are fair and also supportive of their business. 

The worker-owners are involved in making decisions about where the profit of the business is going towards, how much of it is put back into the business versus how much of it turns into salary or pay that workers get to take home. 

We’re so proud that they’re now in business and working and taking on clients. And this is especially important for this group of women. One being a multiracial group of women, Miami is a place that is very segregated still by class and therefore by race, especially along national lines. So you often don’t see images or representations of people who are Spanish speaking from Peru or Nicaragua working in collaboration with Haitian women. And that is what we’re seeing in this cooperative. 

It’s not only an example of how people from different places can work together when there’s a shared vision and shared respect for one another, but also as domestic workers in an industry that is very precarious, where workers are often working in private homes: there’s little to no regulations for these workers. They’re often mistreated and taken advantage of, both economically, but also personally, it’s horrible the levels of disrespect and violence that women often experience on the job. 

Being part of a worker cooperative, an organization that has their back in these situations, that they don’t have to deal with these challenges alone, is really important. And then another part of it also is the environmental impact. So part of their commitment as a cooperative is educating other workers, other domestic workers on what are the kind of products that workers should be using on the job that doesn’t harm their health. 

MC

This is an aside but I remember when I was younger talking to my dad and being like, “Dad, I saw this thing that said ‘vinegar is really good for cleaning stuff. It that true?’” And his response was, “Yeah, if you like the smell of vinegar.” 

LS

(laughs) 

MC

It was the most dad response you could get. 

I saw something else about an eviction diversion program at Miami Workers Center. Can you share what that is and how that works? 

LS

In 2022, about four years ago, we advocated at the county that a budget for this program be created. We wanted to see a codified right to counsel for tenants who are facing eviction to have the right to free legal representation so that they have a better chance of staying housed, as a strategy to slow the rate of evictions in Miami-Dade County and have that impact the rate in which prices were going up. It’s kind of like a slow the bleed strategy. 

And we realized there would be many challenges to enforcing having a codified right to counsel without  funding for pro bono lawyers who are willing to represent these tenants, even if tenants had those rights on paper. So we successfully got this program started, which wouldn’t have been possible without our legal partners in this work. It’s in the second or third year now where MWC has a canvassing team dedicated to canvassing tenants who are facing eviction.  Many times, our team is how families are finding out that they have five days to file a response to the court or they default on their eviction. 

That’s part of the work that we’re doing. We are also putting on monthly know your rights and legal clinics in each district in the county. 

Part of the challenge is continuing funding for this every single year. We have to go to the county and fight at this point. It’s not even, what we want to see is increased funding, but what we’re seeing is a fight just to keep it as it is, where it can’t even, the program can’t even expand. That’s part of the challenge where we’re at now. 

Last year, the Eviction Diversion Project reached over 11,000 families with information about their rights, and connected over 1,700 to the representation that they needed. Many people were able to file responses and stay in their homes. 

Some of our most committed members are those who have that lived experience of facing an eviction and fighting it. Some win and some don’t, but throughout the process they are seeing how MWC stands in solidarity with them and has their back, and they want to ensure that that doesn’t happen to anybody else, that evictions don’t happen to any of their other neighbors. 

MC

What you’ve shared about Miami Workers Center makes me think about this idea of the third space. I think it’s so interesting because we’re in this moment where companies and corporations and brands are working so hard to figure out how they can get people offline and to real life experiences, and moments and events and things to build their excitement and engagement and buy into their brand. 

I keep thinking about how that is what our communities do inherently, like what organizing is, is about creating that offline interaction and engagement for community. I think we are just in this moment, especially in this post-pandemic era where people are just craving a place to be and to be engaged in something bigger than themselves. It’s really beautiful to see groups all around the country and the world that are doing that kind of stuff. 

LS

Yeah, it’s our biggest strength: being human beings in a world that desperately wants to be everything but a human being.

MC

So you work at Miami Workers Center, and you’re also an artist, and this other thing that people call themselves, a cultural organizer. What is a cultural organizer? 

LS

I actually was just thinking about this the other day, ’cause I’m like, what is that? What is it that I do exactly?’ 

I would say it’s being part of efforts that are bigger, that are like, what is that phrase, greater than the sum of its parts. Where you understand that it’s not about the work that you do alone, but it’s about making connections. And so for me, what that looks like is being open to connecting with new people, people who I see are doing similar kinds of work or trying to, or doing work in an effort of making [it] progressive. 

I have cultural worker friends who are in cumbia bands and doing local shows. I have friends who are sculpture artists who do poetry, and who are more in the academic field who are archivists and researchers. So it’s about getting to know all these different kinds of people and what they care about, and then being part of the organizing and using that as a vehicle in which these can come together in some way or another, even if it’s not part of a formal project. 

Cultural organizing can look like an assembly that was produced in collaboration with a grassroots organization, with a campaign, a clear call to action, and had theater and song and dance and art. It can also look like the long-term work of building relationships with people locally and trying to align on some shared vision. 

MC

It feels like there’s some similarity to when I was on the fundraising team at CJA for a while, and during that time we were grappling with the idea of calling ourselves resource mobilizers. It was a way to say that this is different from the mainstream approach to fundraising. It was kind of this reclamation, or just creating something of our own. 

LS

Yeah. And, where I would fear that the term cultural organizing doesn’t go is just seeing culture alone as a vehicle for change. When the reality is that you need culture and organizational structure and shifting of labor conditions, you know, to make systemic change. I think the smartest cultural organizing happens before we can get to the place where tenants are willing to form an organizing team and organize their neighbors. 

Food is the best way to get people to know each other. You gotta start with the barbecues, the cookouts, the movie nights, like that is cultural organizing at its best when it’s infused with the organizing strategy and not seen as an afterthought. 

MC

Speaking of food, you created a really beautiful food sovereignty poster a while ago. What was your process to actually make that poster? 

LS

My process began before the Creative Wildfire fellowship came about. I had been part of working with an organization, another local worker center called WeCount!, who organizes with day laborers, agricultural workers, domestic workers, construction workers. For many years I had been making campaign posters with them, doing graphics with them. And so through that experience, I got to know more about the struggle of agricultural workers who are trying to organize to change the industry. When I got the opportunity to collaborate with CJA and the Farm Workers Association of Florida on this and got to hear the stories that they shared, I wanted to paint the picture of both visualizing a transition with snapshots of what we are seeing in the world. 

You’ll see, I think it was in the bottom left, kind of like a toxic environment where the soil is very toxic and not only toxic to the land, but also to the workers who are tending to the crops, the food, and then in the bottom right, it’s almost like a comic, starting from the bottom left to the right, and then kind of moving its way up through transformation. The intention was that you could read it as a comic in that way or just as a process, but then looking at it wholly there’s always something bad and something good happening at the same time. It doesn’t show that everything is all great and we’re gonna arrive at liberation and things are just gonna be amazing. There’s always going to be struggle ’cause that’s just part of life. And so the intention was centered around food which is why you have the fish and the animals that are from the Everglades, which is most near to where I’m based out of. But you see people in it as well. I really wanted to just kind of pay respects to the workers who tend to the lands to make our food possible. Also recognizing that there’s a lot of work to be done to make it better. 

MC

What is some art that has really moved you recently? 

LS

There’s an organization in North Carolina called Down Home. They just started a video storytelling series and I’m really excited to see it. It’s called the Front Porch. They have a substack and they just put out a teaser video. It seems like they’re going to show stories and profiles of different people in rural North Carolina. Storytelling projects like that are exciting to me right now. It reminds you that the people in the stories are human, real people, showing their lives.

MC

Thank you, Lizzie, for taking some time. It was really nice to chat and hear a little more about what you’re doing. 

The post Lizzie Suarez on how Miami is changing, the city’s first cleaning cooperative, and being a culture worker appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

This article The “Hitler question” should never justify war was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'YPdje40rReR0u8NZrledcQ',sig:'d49bMKZ3OJIwzIJyjRJ2S7qv4WhCYAmxWkj4ozZAKsY=',w:'594px',h:'466px',items:'1515017735',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Proponents of war and militarization often invoke common memories of Hitler and World War II to argue that we are now in a similar moment. Whether it is with Saddam Hussein in 2003, al Qaeda during the “war on terrorism,” Iran’s Supreme Leader in 2017, or Putin since 2022, a classic trope is to compare enemy leaders to the Nazis. In the lead-up to the Iran War this February, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham likened Iran’s religious leaders to Hitler and argued for regime change by any means. 

It is only a matter of time before Hitler is invoked again to justify yet another war or yet more militarization. How can those who are uneasy with war and militarism prepare to counter such arguments?

The “Hitler question” — what would you do if faced with Nazi aggression? — has certainly long functioned as a rhetorical trump card against pacifism and nonviolence. It is usually posed as a trap. If pacifists concede violence might be necessary, their principles are revealed as hollow. If they reject violence even then, they are exposed as naive or morally indifferent. 

#newsletter-block_cab7c98a5eb7f14481080aa2a87caad1 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_cab7c98a5eb7f14481080aa2a87caad1 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Look closer, however, and it turns out that this framing rests on shaky assumptions and questionable simplifications. Even on as serious a challenge as the “Hitler question,” pacifism and nonviolence offer far more serious and practical insights than usually given credit for. 

As I examine in greater depth in a recent academic journal article, there are 10 ways in which the conventional assumptions behind the “Hitler question” can be challenged. 

Resisting the Nazis 

On the specific historical context of the Nazi question, first, framing the question in 1939, with war underway or imminent, bypasses or ignores the decades of political choices, structural violence, and missed opportunities that made that crisis so acute. 

From the punitive settlement after World War I, to the nationalist backlash and wider repercussions of the 1929 economic collapse, to imperial rivalries and militarized politics across Europe, decisions were made and particular paths were chosen. Different choices might have prevented the rise of Nazism in the first place. The crisis by 1939 was not caused by pacifism, but by decades of violence and militarism that helped create the conditions in which Hitler thrived.

Second, even if one accepts that war ultimately contributed to defeating Nazi Germany, an honest account would include a more critical look at what violence did — and did not — achieve. Military force did not prevent Hitler’s rise, nor did it stop the early expansion of Nazi power. 

War also did not protect Europe’s Jews from genocide; in fact, the Holocaust escalated under the cover and brutality of wartime conditions. Nor was the Allied war effort primarily motivated by a desire to stop genocide. Strategic priorities focused on territorial and political competition, and opportunities to disrupt the machinery of mass murder were often not taken.

This complicates the popular narrative of World War II as a clear-cut moral triumph. The same states that defeated Hitler tolerated or ignored other atrocities before and after the war (Gaza providing a recent example). Moreover, the conflict itself involved massive civilian casualties, indiscriminate bombing and forms of collective punishment that blur the line between justice and destruction. War may have brought down the Nazi regime, but it did so at enormous human cost and without eradicating the underlying ideologies of fascism and militarism, which persist in various forms and have become particularly revitalized and threatening in recent years.

Third, violent resistance was not the only form of resistance that ultimately defeated the Nazis. Nonviolent resistance contributed, too. Across occupied Europe, ordinary people and institutions engaged in acts of civil defiance, including strikes, bureaucratic obstruction, clandestine publishing, education boycotts, and networks that hid and protected Jews. In countries like Denmark and Bulgaria, public solidarity helped save large numbers of Jewish lives. Even within Germany, protests such as the Rosenstrasse demonstration, where non-Jewish wives secured the release of their Jewish husbands, forced concessions from the regime. (Incidentally, examples of nonviolent resistance and defense can be found in the current Ukraine war, too.)

Previous Coverage

The dangerous assumption that violence keeps us safe

These efforts were rarely coordinated on a large scale, and they did not defeat Nazism on their own. But their contribution challenges the idea that nonviolence was absent or irrelevant. Such examples, however, were also largely spontaneous (as they have been in Ukraine since 2022). The populations that resisted nonviolently have not benefited from systematic training and investment in such methods. Yet, just as military success depends on training, resources and coordination, so too does effective nonviolent resistance.

Fourth, as we know from plenty of recent scholarship and hundreds of examples, nonviolence operates differently from violence. Rather than seeking to overpower an opponent physically, it aims to undermine the social and political foundations of their power. Authoritarian regimes — even brutal ones — depend on compliance, legitimacy and the participation of ordinary people. When those forms of support are withdrawn, the regime’s capacity to function erodes. Nonviolent resistance can also create what is often called a “backfire effect,” exposing the injustice of repression and turning it against the oppressor by mobilizing public opinion.

Even the Nazi regime was not immune to these dynamics. It paid attention to public sentiment and adjusted policies when backlash threatened stability. The visibility of violence mattered: After the widely condemned brutality of Kristallnacht, antisemitic policies were implemented more discreetly. Nazi authorities went out of their way to hide practical elements of the “final solution” from public view. Where Jewish communities were less isolated and enjoyed broader solidarity, such as in Denmark and Bulgaria, survival rates were higher. These examples suggest that public opinion and social ties were not irrelevant, even under totalitarian rule.

Fifth, World War II is often remembered as being against “the Germans,” as a total war pitting entire populations against each other, as if all Germans were equally guilty. This obscures the fact that many non-Nazi Germans were victims of Nazism, too — such as civilians, conscripts and dissidents. Military conflict tends to turn entire nations into enemies. War dehumanizes, reinforcing binary identities and legitimizing large-scale destruction (as the genocide in Gaza illustrates all too clearly). Pacifism and nonviolence, by contrast, insist on recognizing the humanity of all involved, even while resisting injustice.

Resisting war 

Beyond the specifics of the Nazi context, it is worth also interrogating some of the assumptions with which the “Hitler question” tends to be asked. Five challenges to conventional wisdom emerge here, too.

First, pacifism is often over-caricatured and misunderstood. For one, it is often assumed that pacifism is a single, absolutist doctrine that rejects all forms of violence under any circumstances. Yet pacifist thought is diverse. Some strands are principled, others pragmatic; some oppose all war, while others argue that specifically modern warfare — especially in the nuclear age — is too destructive to justify. Many pacifists engage deeply with questions of strategy, effectiveness and political responsibility.

Another misconception is that pacifism equates to passivity. To the contrary, nonviolent action often involves risk, disruption and courage. It can include strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts and other forms of active resistance that challenge power structures directly. Far from being passive, such actions often require significant organization and personal sacrifice.

Second, nonviolence is more effective than its detractors often seem to assume. Studies have found that nonviolent campaigns have historically been more successful than violent ones, even against authoritarian regimes, and that they tend to produce more democratic and stable outcomes. While these findings have attracted some debate and certainly do not guarantee success in every case, they undermine the assumption that violence is inherently more effective.

There is, admittedly, no clear historical example of a society successfully defending itself against a full-scale invasion using only nonviolent methods. However, cases can be found of civilian resistance to occupation and authoritarian rule, suggesting that nonviolent defense could function as an extension of these practices. The idea of “civilian-based defense” involves preparing entire populations to resist through non-cooperation, making occupation difficult or unsustainable. This approach has never been systematically implemented, making it difficult to evaluate — but its potential cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Third, the “constitutive” impact of war is also not to be neglected. Violence, even when effective, does not simply achieve objectives; it reshapes societies (as evident with those countries affected by the Ukraine war, and in Israel and Palestine). War strengthens militarized institutions, normalizes hierarchy and cultivates cultures that are more accepting of violence. It leaves deep psychological and social scars, and it often fuels future conflicts. The economic and political systems built to support war — arms industries, military alliances, security infrastructures — take on a life of their own.

This raises a different kind of question: not just whether violence can defeat a particular enemy, but what kind of world it creates in the process. If war fosters the very conditions — militarism, dehumanization, authoritarianism — that enable regimes like Nazi Germany, then relying on it as a solution may be self-defeating.

Fourth, any assumption that violence can be controlled is also questionable. War is often imagined as a precise instrument, but in practice it is chaotic and unpredictable. It escalates, generates unintended consequences and often exceeds the intentions of those who initiate it, as we’re seeing with the ongoing U.S. and Israeli war on Iran. Civilian casualties, environmental destruction and long-term instability are not anomalies but recurring features. Once unleashed, violence is difficult to contain.

#support-block_623210016f4253a4c14ba30be688d0fd { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Fifth, it is worth reflecting on the cultural and political uses of the “Hitler question.” It is often invoked not only in historical debates but in contemporary conflicts, where enemy leaders are recurrently cast as yet “another Hitler” to justify yet another military intervention. This framing simplifies complex situations and encourages a moral narrative in which violence appears as the only responsible choice. It also reflects a particular perspective, rooted in Western experiences and dominant memories of World War II, that obscures other histories and viewpoints, such as those of conscientious objectors, dissidents, women, racial minorities or colonized people.

As a result, a romanticized vision of war as a moment of heroic and hypermasculine struggle against evil, where violence is regrettable but necessary, gets reproduced. This narrative overlooks the broader consequences of war and the voices of those who experience its costs most directly — civilians, marginalized communities and those outside the centers of power.

All this is not to say that nonviolence would certainly have stopped Hitler or that all wars are avoidable. What I do mean to say, however, is that the “Hitler question” is not as decisive an argument against pacifism and in favor of the next war as those who ask it often seem to think. By examining its assumptions and revisiting the historical record, the choice between violence and nonviolence emerges as more complex than the question tends to allow. Pacifism and nonviolence offer not a simplistic rejection of force, but a set of critical tools for thinking about power, resistance and the long-term consequences of political action.

In a world where calls for war continue to be justified by invoking existential threats and moral urgency, advocates of pacifism and nonviolence should not feel disarmed by the “Hitler question.” The challenge is not to provide easy answers, but to broaden the conversation — to consider alternatives, question assumptions and invite to take seriously the possibility that resisting violence does not always require more of it.

This article The “Hitler question” should never justify war was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed funding the Demand Side Grid Support program through this year before moving participants to a separate, utility-run framework. Clean energy groups call the proposal costly and counterproductive.

With a new Ebola outbreak announced in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on May 15 and declared an international public health emergency just two days later, on top of the recent Andes hantavirus cruise ship outbreak, NNU is sounding the alarm on the Trump administration’s bungled response to emerging infectious diseases.

 

Shell’s premium V-Power fuel is back in the spotlight, promising cleaner engines, better protection, and “more” of almost everything. But for drivers with long memories, the phrase “Shell wonder fuel” comes with a faint smell of burnt valves, marketing hype, and very expensive déjà vu. DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and satirical commentary based on cited public sources. It is not financial advice, consumer advice, engineering advice, or a recommendation to buy, avoid, invest in, or rely on any Shell product or security. Drivers should follow their vehicle manufacturer’s fuel recommendations and seek qualified mechanical advice where appropriate. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE THE RETURN OF THE WONDER FUEL WAGON

There are few things Big Oil enjoys more than selling fossil fuel as if it were a wellness product.

Shell V-Power is not merely petrol, we are invited to understand. It is a premium experience. A scientific elixir. A motorised spa treatment. Something your engine apparently deserves after a long week of commuting, congestion, and quietly funding quarterly distributions.

A recent ad-hoc-news article describes Shell V-Power as Shell’s premium gasoline brand, marketed to help clean and protect modern engines, and aimed at explaining what US drivers should expect from it. The article says V-Power is Shell’s “flagship premium gasoline brand” and notes that it is positioned around detergents, friction modifiers, premium octane, and engine-cleanliness claims.

Shell’s own US marketing is even more enthusiastic. The company says Shell V-Power® NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline “removes up to 100% of performance robbing deposits,” promises “more power” and “more performance,” and says the product contains six times the cleaning agents required by federal standards.

Naturally, the word “more” does a lot of heavy lifting here.

More performance.

More protection.

More cleaning.

More premium.

More money at the pump.

Less obvious certainty that every ordinary driver will actually notice a miraculous transformation between home, work, school run, supermarket, and the pothole collection formerly known as the public road.

WHAT SHELL SAYS V-POWER DOES

Shell says the new formulation of V-Power NiTRO+ has “a new molecule” designed to remove up to 100% of carbon deposits from fuel injectors in gasoline direct injection engines. It says the fuel provides protection against deposits, corrosion, wear, and friction, and that V-Power contains the highest concentration of its proprietary additive package.

Shell also says V-Power NiTRO+ is Top Tier certified and has been tested in laboratory procedures, bench engines, and vehicles, with “more than half a million equivalent miles of testing.”

So let us be fair: Shell is not simply printing “magic petrol” on a pump and hoping nobody asks what an injector is.

There is a technical basis for detergent additives. Deposits can affect engine performance. Premium fuel can matter where a manufacturer requires or recommends higher octane. Modern direct-injection engines can be sensitive to deposit build-up.

But the real-world question is not whether fuel additives exist.

The real-world question is whether Shell’s premium potion is worth the premium price for the average driver — especially if their car only requires regular fuel.

And that is where the glossy ad copy begins to sound less like engineering and more like a scented candle for the combustion chamber.

THE ORDINARY DRIVER’S QUESTION: DO I NEED THIS STUFF?

For some drivers, the answer may be yes.

If your car requires premium fuel, use premium fuel. The owner’s manual is not decorative literature. It is there because the engine was designed around certain requirements.

If your car is turbocharged, high-compression, performance-tuned, or explicitly recommends premium gasoline, Shell V-Power may fit the use case Shell is targeting.

But if your car only requires regular fuel, the argument becomes murkier.

The ad-hoc-news article notes that premium fuel use depends heavily on vehicle manufacturer guidance, and that fuel economy changes are often small and vehicle-dependent.

AAA research found that premium gasoline was typically 23% more expensive than regular gasoline in the period studied, and examined whether using premium in cars requiring regular fuel represented a good return on investment.

A widely reported summary of that AAA study said US drivers wasted more than $2.1 billion in a year by using premium-grade gasoline in vehicles designed to run on regular, with no tangible benefit in the tested categories.

So the practical rule remains brutally simple:

If your vehicle requires premium, buy premium.

If your vehicle recommends premium, it may help under some conditions.

If your vehicle only requires regular, premium fuel may mainly improve the mood of the company selling it.

SHELL’S LITTLE PROBLEM: HISTORY HAS A LONG MEMORY AND A BURNT SMELL

This is where the Royal Dutch Shell Group archive piece from 2015 becomes especially useful.

John Donovan’s article, “Shell V-Power NiTRO+ ignites memories of past Shell wonder fuel debacles,” recalled Shell’s 1986 launch of Formula Shell — another heavily promoted fuel dressed up in scientific glamour. The article quoted Shell’s own paid historian, Keetie Sluyterman, describing how Formula Shell was launched in Europe with “heavy advertising” and “scientific connotations.”

Then came the small snag.

According to the cited historical account, the launch initially boosted sales, but later it emerged that in a small number of cars the new gasoline caused inlet valves to burn. The account says damage occurred in Denmark, Norway, Malaysia, and the UK; Shell withdrew Formula Shell from several markets, including the UK, before reformulating and relaunching the product.

That is quite a plot twist.

Act One: “From today not all petrol is the same.”

Act Two: Correct. Some of it may burn your valves.

To be precise, the historic Formula Shell episode should not be treated as proof that modern V-Power is unsafe. That would be an unfair leap. Modern fuels, regulations, engines, testing regimes, and additive chemistry are different.

But it absolutely does justify scepticism toward Shell’s recurring talent for dressing fuel products in a white laboratory coat and sending them out under a shower of marketing confetti.

The lesson is not “V-Power equals Formula Shell.”

The lesson is: when Shell says it has a wonder fuel, check the small print before joining the hymn service.

THE MARKETING FORMULA: SCIENCE, SPEED, SPARKLE, SPEND

The fuel business has always loved mystique.

Octane numbers become personality traits.

Additives become secret sauces.

Laboratory terms become pump-side seduction.

The driver is nudged to imagine that using regular fuel is practically an act of cruelty toward the engine.

Shell’s current V-Power US page leans hard into this theatre, with repeated “more” language: more power, more performance, more protection. It also states that actual effects and benefits may vary by vehicle type, driving conditions, and driving style.

There, hidden beneath the bonnet of the sales pitch, sits the disclaimer goblin.

“May vary” is doing the sensible work that “more” forgot to do.

This does not mean Shell’s claims are automatically false. It means consumers should understand what is being claimed, under what conditions, and whether those conditions resemble their own driving life.

A carefully tested engine-cleanliness benefit is one thing.

A driver expecting their family hatchback to emerge from the Shell forecourt with the soul of a Le Mans prototype is quite another.

PREMIUM FUEL: USEFUL PRODUCT OR STATUS SYMBOL WITH A NOZZLE?

Premium fuel is not inherently a scam.

Higher octane fuel resists knocking. Some engines require it. Some engines can adjust timing and performance when higher octane is available. Some drivers may value detergent packages and additive claims.

But premium fuel is also a brilliant retail product because it sells aspiration at the precise moment the consumer is already holding a payment card.

The pump effectively whispers:

“You could buy the ordinary fuel. Or you could be the sort of person who cares.”

That is premiumisation in its purest form.

Shell is not just selling petrol. It is selling the idea that you are a more responsible, performance-minded, engine-loving motorist because you picked the expensive handle.

And for Shell, that is an attractive business.

Fuel retail is fiercely competitive. Differentiated premium products help defend margins, build brand loyalty, and keep customers inside the Shell ecosystem — especially when linked to apps, rewards schemes, and brand claims about superior protection.

In short: V-Power is not merely fuel technology. It is also a margin strategy with a racing helmet.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ABSURDITY: CLEANER ENGINE, DIRTIER PLANET?

Here is the uncomfortable part.

Shell V-Power is marketed around cleanliness — cleaner injectors, fewer deposits, better protection.

But it remains a fossil-fuel product sold by one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies.

So we are invited to applaud a fuel for cleaning the inside of an engine while the broader business model remains tied to extracting, refining, transporting, and selling hydrocarbons.

It is the classic Shell paradox:

Look how clean this combustion chamber is. Please ignore the climate chamber.

To be clear, cleaner engine operation can matter. Fuel quality can affect emissions, efficiency, and engine performance.

But premium petrol should not be mistaken for climate virtue. It is still petrol. It is still burned. It still produces tailpipe CO₂. It still belongs to the carbon economy Shell is working very hard to keep profitable for as long as possible.

The product may be cleaner in a mechanical sense.

That does not make it clean in a planetary sense.

THE OLD SHELL TRICK: TURNING CONTROVERSY INTO CONFIDENCE

Shell’s genius has always been its ability to speak in two registers at once.

To consumers, it says: trust the science, protect your engine, choose better fuel.

To investors, it says: trust the cash flow, protect the dividend, choose disciplined capital.

To critics, it says: we are part of the transition.

To regulators, it says: everything is tested, certified, and very carefully footnoted.

The result is a corporate voice so smooth it could probably reduce friction in an engine itself.

But the V-Power story shows the same pattern visible across Shell’s wider public image: a highly engineered message wrapped around a product that deserves scrutiny.

A premium fuel may be legitimate.

A marketing miracle should be treated with caution.

And a company with Shell’s history should not be offended when people remember previous episodes in which technical confidence and advertising swagger aged badly.

THE FORMULA SHELL GHOST AT THE PUMP

The 1980s Formula Shell controversy remains relevant not because history repeats exactly, but because corporate habits often rhyme.

Then: a fuel launched with scientific glamour.

Now: a fuel sold with technical superiority language.

Then: a brand message suggesting not all petrol is the same.

Now: a brand message suggesting your engine deserves “more.”

Then: Shell discovered that fuel chemistry, engines, and real-world use can create unpleasant surprises.

Now: consumers are expected to trust that the laboratory, the legal department, and the marketing department are all aligned in perfect harmony.

Perhaps they are.

But the ghost of Formula Shell still hovers near the pump, whispering:

“Have we checked this properly, or are we just applauding the brochure?”

BOTTOM LINE FOR DRIVERS

The sensible position is neither panic nor blind loyalty.

Shell V-Power NiTRO+ may offer real benefits for some vehicles, particularly those designed for premium fuel or sensitive to deposits. Shell’s claims about detergent concentration, Top Tier certification, and testing should be taken seriously as product information.

But drivers should also take Shell’s marketing language seriously as marketing.

For many everyday vehicles that only require regular gasoline, premium fuel may not deliver enough real-world benefit to justify the extra cost. AAA’s research has long warned against assuming premium fuel automatically benefits cars designed for regular.

The best advice remains boring, which is why no advertising agency likes it:

Read the owner’s manual.

Follow the manufacturer’s fuel requirement.

Do not confuse premium branding with universal necessity.

And remember that “up to” is one of the most elastic phrases in modern commerce.

CONCLUSION: SAME SHELL, DIFFERENT NOZZLE

Shell V-Power may be a technically sophisticated premium fuel.

It may help some engines.

It may be a sensible choice for some drivers.

But it is also another chapter in Shell’s long-running romance with the “wonder fuel” narrative — a place where chemistry meets commerce, disclaimers meet desire, and the humble petrol pump is transformed into a miniature cathedral of corporate persuasion.

The old Formula Shell episode is not a conviction against modern V-Power.

But it is a warning against corporate amnesia.

Shell has been here before: big claims, big branding, big confidence.

Drivers should remember what Shell marketing prefers to forget:

Not every miracle at the pump is a miracle for the motorist.

Sometimes it is just premium petrol with a premium script.

And sometimes the cleanest thing in the whole transaction is the way the extra money disappears from your wallet.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION Shell Miracle Fuel Statement, Possibly Written by a Chemist, a Marketer, and a Dividend Forecast

Shell is proud to offer drivers a premium fuel experience carefully engineered to deliver more of the things motorists like, including more performance language, more protection terminology, more molecules, and more reasons to download an app.

Our Shell V-Power® NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline is designed for today’s modern engines and tomorrow’s exciting consumer expectations, particularly the expectation that a petrol pump should sound like a Formula One laboratory with a loyalty programme.

We recognise that some drivers may wonder whether they need premium fuel. We encourage them to consult their owner’s manual, while also admiring the emotional maturity of any engine that knows it deserves more.

Shell rejects the suggestion that “wonder fuel” is an overused phrase. We prefer “advanced proprietary performance-enhancing mobility molecule platform,” which regrettably did not fit on the pump handle.

As for historical references to Formula Shell, we believe the past is important, but only in carefully curated corporate heritage videos featuring clean overalls, sunsets, and no burnt valves.

Forward-looking statement: actual miracles may vary by vehicle type, driving conditions, engine age, legal jurisdiction, marketing interpretation, and the willingness of the customer to pay extra.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

@PumpSidePhilosopher: “Shell says my engine deserves more. My bank account says my engine can learn humility.”

@ValveBurner1986: “Formula Shell called. It says maybe don’t let the brochure drive the car.”

@PremiumNozzleEnjoyer: “I bought V-Power and my hatchback still refuses to become a Ferrari. Considering litigation against my imagination.”

@DepositGoblin: “Up to 100% is my favourite corporate phrase. I am up to 100% likely to be impressed.”

@ClimateChamber: “Great news: the engine is cleaner. The atmosphere has declined to comment.”

@OctaneOracle: “Use premium if your car needs premium. Revolutionary stuff. Expect a 90-page Shell white paper shortly.”

@MarketingMolecule: “I am proprietary, advanced, and available wherever margins need assistance.”

SUGGESTED IMAGE CONCEPT

A satirical editorial illustration set at a glowing Shell petrol station at night.

In the foreground, a giant golden Shell V-Power pump is labelled “MIRACLE MOLECULE PREMIUM” and is sucking money from a driver’s wallet while spraying glittering fuel into a normal family car.

Behind the car, a ghostly 1980s-style petrol pump labelled “FORMULA SHELL 1986” rises from the fumes, surrounded by small burnt engine valves and warning signs.

On one side, a smiling Shell marketing executive holds a clipboard reading “MORE POWER! MORE PERFORMANCE! MORE DISCLAIMERS!”

On the other side, a mechanic holds up an owner’s manual saying “READ THIS FIRST.”

In the background, the Shell logo glows over a smoky horizon, while a small caption reads:

“Not all petrol is the same. Neither are the consequences.”

Style: sharp tabloid cartoon, high contrast, dramatic lighting, satirical, non-photorealistic, no real people depicted.

SHELL V-POWER: THE PETROL PUMP MIRACLE JUICE THAT WANTS YOUR ENGINE — AND YOUR WALLET — TO FEEL SPECIAL was first posted on May 20, 2026 at 5:22 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

It’s been over half a year since Hurricane Melissa, the most powerful hurricane to ever hit Jamaica, tore a path of destruction through the island. Many migrant farmworker families remain homeless and a number of communities still don’t have electricity restored, relying on expensive generators and battery-operated devices for power. The agricultural areas of the island got hit the hardest, impacting access to fresh food and driving up grocery prices.

What Your Donation Will Support

100% of all contributions go directly to farmworker families’ immediate needs:

• Emergency food and clean water supplies
• Critical medications and medical supplies
• Temporary shelter and urgent roof repairs
• Flood recovery and debris removal
• Other immediate costs as needed

About This Effort

Migrant Workers Alliance for Change is providing direct support to Jamaican farm worker members impacted by the devastating storm. Many of these workers split their time between Canada and Jamaica as part of seasonal agricultural programs, and they’re facing this crisis both in Canada and now in Jamaica.

Your contribution goes directly to migrant workers and their families who need it most. No administrative fees, just direct relief.

How to Help

Donate Now

Suggested amounts:

• $100 – Provides emergency food supplies for one family
• $300 – Funds urgent roof repairs to prevent further damage
• $500 – Comprehensive support including food, clothing, medicine, and shelter repairs
• Other amount – Every dollar makes a difference

Why This Matters

These are the same workers who help feed Canada. When disaster strikes their communities, they deserve our support. The combination of destroyed infrastructure and disrupted income means families are struggling to meet basic needs.

Share this campaign: Help us reach more supporters by sharing on social media

The post Help Jamaican Farm Workers Recover from Devastating Hurricane first appeared on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

The post Help Jamaican Farm Workers Recover from Devastating Hurricane appeared first on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

Current and former Shell employees have publicly challenged the company’s climate strategy — raising the awkward question Shell would rather bury beneath a tanker-load of LNG: what happens if the fossil-fuel future it is betting on does not arrive? DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and satirical commentary based on cited public sources. It is not financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Readers should conduct their own research and seek professional advice where appropriate. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE REFINERY

There are bad days in corporate public relations, and then there is the very special sort of day when your own current and former employees publicly challenge your climate strategy at your AGM.

That, according to the NL Times, is what Shell faced on Tuesday, 19 May 2026, when a group of current and former Shell employees challenged the company’s climate strategy at its shareholder meeting in London.

Their warning was blunt enough to cut through the usual corporate fog: Shell’s continued focus on oil and liquefied natural gas may expose both the business and investors to serious long-term risks.

In other words: the call may now be coming from inside the refinery.

The challenge was linked to a shareholder resolution coordinated by Follow This, which asked Shell to disclose how it would create shareholder value if oil and gas demand declines.

Follow This said the 2026 resolutions at Shell and BP were co-filed by 23 institutional investors with €1.5 trillion in assets under management and that — for the first time — current and former Shell employees co-filed the Shell resolution.

That is not exactly a fringe protest by someone wearing a polar bear costume outside the sandwich shop.

It is a governance question wrapped in a climate question wrapped in a large flashing neon sign reading:

What happens if the fossil-fuel gravy train meets a demand cliff?

THE AGM: DEMOCRACY, BUT WITH A VERY LARGE OIL SLICK

Shell’s 2026 AGM took place in London on 19 May 2026.

The company’s own voting results show that Resolutions 1 to 22 passed, while Resolution 23 — the shareholder climate-risk resolution — failed.

Resolution 23 received:

470,824,659 votes in favour — 13.01%

against

3,148,423,871 votes against — 86.99%

Shell immediately treated this as shareholder endorsement.

Chief Executive Wael Sawan said:

“Shell’s shareholders continue to strongly back our strategy as we transform Shell into a better performing and more resilient business. We are making progress towards our financial and climate targets, providing the oil and gas the world needs today while helping to build the energy system of the future. We will apply discipline and focus as we continue to deliver more value with less emissions.”

Translated from Corporate Cathedral English: shareholders voted down the awkward question, so management declared the choir in perfect harmony.

But 13.01% support for a climate-risk resolution at a fossil-fuel giant is not nothing.

It is hundreds of millions of votes saying, in effect:

“Could we at least see the spreadsheet for the scenario where the world does not burn hydrocarbons forever?”

SHELL’S NEW FAVOURITE CLIMATE SOLUTION APPEARS TO BE… MORE LNG

Shell’s answer to climate pressure is increasingly LNG — liquefied natural gas — the fossil fuel that arrives wearing a slightly cleaner tie than coal and expects applause for not being the dirtiest guest in the room.

In its LNG response document, Shell says it has a “positive outlook for LNG over the long term” and describes LNG as central to its strategy.

The company says it wants to be “the leading integrated gas and LNG business in the world” and argues that LNG can play a role in energy security and the transition.

Shell also states:

“For all these reasons, Shell believes that supplying LNG will be the biggest contribution we will make to the energy transition over the next decade.”

There it is: the energy transition, Shell-style.

Not so much “less fossil fuel” as:

Different fossil fuel, but with PowerPoint gradients.

To be fair, Shell’s argument is not invented out of thin air. Gas can displace coal in some power systems. LNG can provide flexible supply. Energy security is a real issue.

But the controversy is about scale, lock-in, methane leakage, capital allocation, and whether Shell is positioning itself for a genuine transition or merely putting a lower-carbon label on a very large fossil-fuel expansion strategy.

THE OFFICIAL STRATEGY: NET ZERO IN THE WINDOW, HYDROCARBONS IN THE WAREHOUSE

Shell says its Energy Transition Strategy supports its target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050.

It says meeting growing energy demand while tackling climate change is “an urgent challenge” and “a transformative opportunity.”

The difficulty, as ever, is the gap between slogan and steel.

Shell’s critics argue that the company’s capital discipline has increasingly meant discipline for low-carbon ventures and enthusiasm for oil and gas cash generation.

In 2024, Shell paused construction of its large Rotterdam biofuels plant, a project previously presented as part of its lower-carbon push.

By 2025, Shell was openly sharpening its focus on shareholder distributions, cost cutting, and higher-return businesses. Reporting at the time said Shell planned to cut spending, reduce low-carbon investment as a share of capital expenditure, raise shareholder payouts, and that CEO Wael Sawan’s pay package had increased after Shell’s renewed emphasis on oil and gas.

So the public message is “energy transition.”

The investor message appears rather more like:

Relax, the dividend cannon is still loaded.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: THE GIANT SHAREHOLDERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

Shell is not some corner-shop oil concern run from a filing cabinet and a petrol-stained ledger.

Its shareholder base includes some of the largest institutional investors on Earth.

Recent ownership data compiled by TIKR listed Vanguard Group, BlackRock Institutional Trust, and Norges Bank Investment Management among Shell’s largest shareholders, with Vanguard shown at 186.8 million shares, BlackRock Institutional Trust at 179.5 million shares, and Norges Bank at 150.2 million shares.

That matters.

Because when Shell says shareholders back its strategy, the room is not just populated by individual investors clutching tea and biscuits.

It includes gigantic asset managers whose voting behaviour can help determine whether climate-risk resolutions become governance pressure or politely filed wallpaper.

Meanwhile, Net Zero Investor reported that a group of institutional investors — including West Yorkshire Pension Fund, Lothian Pension Fund, Ethos, PUBLICA, and Mercy Investment Services — urged other investors to support Resolution 23 at Shell’s 2026 AGM.

So there are really two investor stories here.

One is the big-vote story: Shell management won comfortably.

The other is the risk-story: a serious minority of investors, plus current and former employees, are increasingly unwilling to swallow the idea that fossil-fuel expansion and climate resilience are automatically the same thing.

THE COURT BACKDROP: SHELL WINS ONE ROUND, BUT THE COURTROOM SMOKE HAS NOT CLEARED

Shell’s climate strategy is not just being challenged at AGMs.

It has also been fought in court.

The Dutch climate case brought by Milieudefensie concerned whether Shell had a legal obligation to reduce the worldwide aggregate carbon emissions it reports across Scopes 1, 2 and 3 by at least net 45% by 2030, compared with 2019.

Shell notes that the District Court of The Hague imposed a “significant duty of effort” in 2021, but that the Court of Appeal dismissed Milieudefensie’s claim on 12 November 2024.

That appeal victory was significant for Shell.

But it did not magically turn climate risk into fairy dust.

In April 2026, Milieudefensie announced new climate litigation against Shell, keeping the legal pressure alive.

Shell may have won a courtroom battle.

It has not won the climate debate.

And it certainly has not won the physics.

THE AWKWARD TRUTH: EMPLOYEES RARELY GO PUBLIC UNLESS THE BOILER IS HISSING

The most striking feature of the 2026 challenge is not simply that Follow This filed another resolution.

That has happened before.

The striking feature is the involvement of current and former Shell employees.

Employees know the internal culture.

They know the slide decks, the buzzwords, the capital allocation debates, the executive mood music.

When insiders and alumni publicly attach themselves to a resolution questioning the resilience of Shell’s business model under declining oil and gas demand, that is not a minor HR issue.

It is a flare fired from inside the corporate perimeter.

And Shell’s answer — “the shareholders have spoken” — may be technically true but strategically complacent.

Shareholder majorities can be wrong.

Markets can misprice transition risk.

Boards can mistake today’s cash flow for tomorrow’s permission slip.

Ask any former empire.

The palace always looks strongest just before someone notices the foundations are damp.

THE SHELL PARADOX: CLIMATE LANGUAGE, FOSSIL-FUEL MUSCLE

Shell’s modern communications machine speaks fluent transition.

It talks of resilience, lower emissions, energy security, customer demand, and disciplined capital.

But the operational centre of gravity remains oil and gas, especially LNG.

That is the paradox at the heart of Shell in 2026: a company trying to look like a climate-aware energy transition leader while reassuring investors that the hydrocarbon banquet is not over.

The employees and former employees challenging Shell are not asking a mystical question.

They are asking a business question:

What if oil and gas demand falls faster than Shell wants?

What if regulators tighten?

What if clean technologies keep undercutting fossil demand?

What if LNG infrastructure built for decades becomes yesterday’s answer to tomorrow’s grid?

Shell’s board says its strategy is resilient.

Critics want the receipts.

And frankly, if a company is confident that its strategy survives declining fossil-fuel demand, disclosure should not be treated like a hostage negotiation.

CONCLUSION: THE SOUND OF POLITE REBELLION

The 2026 AGM did not overthrow Shell’s strategy.

Resolution 23 was defeated.

The board prevailed.

The machine kept humming.

But the optics are brutal.

Current and former Shell employees publicly challenging the climate strategy of one of the world’s most powerful oil and gas companies is not business as usual.

It is a warning label written by people who have seen the machinery from the inside.

Shell can point to the vote.

It can point to energy security.

It can point to LNG.

It can point to shareholder returns.

It can point to every glossy phrase in the corporate dictionary.

But the central question remains stubbornly alive:

Is Shell preparing for the energy transition, or merely trying to monetise the delay?

Because when even insiders start waving red flags, perhaps the problem is not the flags.

Perhaps it is the smoke.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION Shell Internal Mood Statement, Possibly Drafted by a Committee of Polished Gas Pipelines

Shell welcomes robust dialogue from shareholders, employees, former employees, future employees, hypothetical employees, and any sentient beings willing to recognise the vital importance of hydrocarbons in delivering a lower-carbon future by continuing to sell hydrocarbons.

We are proud that our strategy remains focused on delivering more value with less emissions, more LNG with less awkwardness, and more confidence with less disclosure than some campaigners appear to desire.

At Shell, we believe the energy transition is best achieved through disciplined investment in profitable molecules, especially molecules capable of being liquefied, shipped, regasified, monetised, and described as “part of the solution” in investor presentations.

While a minority of shareholders supported Resolution 23, an overwhelming majority voted against it, demonstrating strong support for our existing approach of telling investors that everything is resilient because we have used the word “resilient” repeatedly.

We thank our current and former employees for their passion.

We also remind everyone that Shell has a proud tradition of listening carefully, engaging constructively, and then continuing with the strategy approved by the people holding the biggest voting cards.

Forward-looking statement: any resemblance between this satire and actual corporate language is purely coincidental, although admittedly not very surprising.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

@DividendGoblin3000: “Climate risk? Sorry, I can’t hear you over the buybacks.”

@LNG_is_Love: “Shell says LNG is its biggest contribution to the energy transition. My biggest contribution to dieting is buying a slightly smaller cake.”

@FormerInsider47: “When the staff start challenging the climate strategy, maybe stop calling it stakeholder engagement and start calling it a smoke alarm.”

@BoardroomBarometer: “Resolution defeated. Physics abstained.”

@GreenwashDetector: “More value with less emissions sounds great until you notice the ‘more value’ is doing most of the work.”

@InstitutionalInvestorBot: “We support climate action, provided it does not interfere with quarterly distributions, executive confidence, or lunch.”

@PlanetaryAccountsDept: “Your transition invoice is overdue.”

IMAGE CONCEPT

A dramatic satirical editorial illustration of a Shell corporate AGM in London.

A giant golden LNG tanker sits in the centre of a luxury boardroom table, leaking black oil onto climate-risk reports.

On one side, polished executives applaud beneath a glowing Shell logo.

On the other side, current and former employees hold warning signs reading:

“Transition Risk”

“Show The Scenario”

“Smoke Alarm”

Outside the window, planet Earth is half-melting, half-covered in gas pipelines.

Style: sharp tabloid editorial illustration, cinematic lighting, high contrast, provocative, non-photorealistic, no real people depicted.

SHELL STAFF REVOLT: WHEN EVEN THE PEOPLE INSIDE THE OIL MACHINE START COUGHING AT THE FUMES was first posted on May 20, 2026 at 4:54 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Pairing geothermal with accelerated transmission development and stronger regional coordination can help the West access its gigawatt-scale geothermal potential, write Clean Air Task Force colleagues.

We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.

Key developments Deforestation talks

COP30 ROADMAP: Brazil’s global roadmap away from deforestation will involve countries producing their own voluntary pathways to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, according to a first outline covered by Climate Home News. At the COP30 climate talks in Belém last year, some 93 countries called for a deforestation “roadmap” to be part of the summit’s formal outcomes. Despite this, countries failed to agree to one – leading host nation Brazil to promise to bring forward a voluntary roadmap as a compromise. 

FOREST FORUM: Speaking at the UN Forum on Forests earlier this month, Juliano Assunção, an advisor to the COP30 presidency on deforestation, presented a first outline of the roadmap, said Climate Home News. According to the publication, Assunção said the roadmap “will not prescribe a single model”, but would instead invite countries to convert their pledges “into forest roadmaps grounded on regional and national diagnosis”. Elsewhere at the forum, Indonesia announced carbon-offsetting plans involving the restoration of 12m hectares of degraded land, said Reuters.

GOALS REPORT: Amid the talks, the UN published its latest assessment on achieving six global forest goals for 2017-30, concluding that “progress is evident, but insufficient”. Down to Earth reported that, according to the report, the world remains off track on two of the “key” targets: ending deforestation and eliminating extreme poverty among forest-dependent populations. Sustainability magazine reported that the goals set a target of increasing global forest area by 3% by 2030, but that, in reality, forest area has declined by more than 40m hectares since 2015.

Melanesian Ocean Summit

SEA SOLIDARITY: The leaders of Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Vanuatu signed a declaration to establish the Melanesian Ocean Corridor of Reserves, reported the Pacific Islands News Association. The corridor will “establish joint border governance, enforcement and marine science frameworks” across five Pacific nations and territories, said the outlet. Vanuatu’s prime minister, Jotham Napat, told the Melanesian Ocean Summit that the corridor “reminds us that our solidarity, not the legacy of colonial rule, determines our future”, according to Vanuatu’s Daily Post.

SEA SOVEREIGNTY: Part of the Melanesian corridor is a new marine protected area the size of the UK, announced by Papua New Guinea at the summit, said Oceanographic magazine. The new MPA will “prohibit all fishing within its boundaries”, reported the outlet. Meanwhile, Tuvalu’s Post Courier reported that the country is “currently developing its first-ever national-security policy, which will place maritime conservation and management at the absolute centre of the country’s strategic architecture”. Prime minister Feleti Teo stated: “The ocean is our sovereignty.” 

CONSIDER THE OCEAN: In a comment article in the journal npj Ocean Sustainability, Dr Carlos García-Soto from the Spanish National Research Council wrote that there is a “structural weakness” in UN climate processes. He noted that the final decision text from COP30 “omitted the ocean entirely”, despite the summit “deliver[ing] the strongest ocean-related initiatives ever presented at a UN climate conference”. García-Soto also outlined five key priorities for integrating ocean considerations into climate governance.

News and views

• CANADA OWN GOAL: The Canadian government has no plans to enshrine into law commitments meant to ensure the nation meets its international nature goals, despite hosting the pivotal COP15 biodiversity summit less than four years ago, said CBC News. 
• CREDIT CHANGE: Brazil’s national monetary council has postponed a regulation that would have blocked farms involved in deforestation from receiving rural credits, reported Folha de São Paulo. The change occurs “following pressure from agribusiness groups to relax the rules”, said the outlet, and means the requirement will now not take effect until January 2027.
• SAND CRISIS: A growing global appetite for sand is outstripping demand and threatening ecosystems, according to a new UN report covered by Reuters.
• LAOS DAMMED: A natural world heritage site in northern Laos is being put at risk by a $3.5bn dam project, reported Nikkei Asia.
• RAPID RESPONSE: The European Commission released its fertiliser action plan to “provide rapid support to farmers…and prevent rising food prices” amid the conflict in the Middle East, said Agenzia Nova. 
• MARSH REVIVAL: Rising water levels are “beginning to revive” southern Iraq’s Cibayish marshes following a years-long drought and “drawing buffalo herders and fishermen back to areas once abandoned”, said Reuters. The country’s water ministry was able to “release growing volumes” of water from reservoirs following heavy winter rains, added the newswire.

Spotlight Returning pet parrots to the wild

This week, Carbon Brief visits a conservation project working to return former pet parrots to the wild in Colombia.

Beautiful feathers. The playfulness and intellect of a small child. On occasion, the ability to partake in some pleasant conversation.

Parrots have captured the attention of humans for centuries. But their unique qualities have also contributed to their decline in the wild.

Some 16m parrots were moved across borders to be sold as pets over 1975-2016, according to one study, making them the most internationally traded bird in the world. 

In Colombia, the world’s most biodiverse country by area, the introduction of tougher laws in 2016 means keeping a wild animal as a pet is now viewed as a “crime against the environment”, punishable with monetary fines.

These stricter rules led to greater numbers of wild parrots being seized by the police and more people giving up their birds voluntarily.

But this clampdown created a new conundrum: What will the Colombian authorities do with their growing population of these, formerly pet, parrots?

A charity called Fundación Loros – “Parrot Foundation” in English – hopes to have the answer.

Parrot rehabilitation   

The foundation is based on 33 hectares of tropical dry forest in Bolívar – around a 40-minute car ride from the popular tourist city of Cartagena on Colombia’s Caribbean coast. 

The deafening screeches of parrots when entering through the site’s gates were impossible to ignore.

Inside, foundation guide Corina walked Carbon Brief through the various stages of pet parrot rehabilitation.

Former pet parrots that are released directly into the wild are unlikely to survive. This is because they often lack the necessary skills, such as how to find food or stay away from predators, including monkeys and coatis.

Parrots arriving at the foundation follow a seven-stage process.

First, they are checked over by a vet and given a tag, so they can be continuously monitored.

Following this, they are kept in a large enclosure and slowly reintroduced to the types of food they might encounter in the wild, including wild fruits and nuts.

After this, they undergo “flight training” – many of the parrots will have been kept in a small cage and never learned how to travel long distances. This involves workers encouraging the birds to fly greater distances in exchange for rewards.

They also join other birds for “flock cohesion” lessons. In the wild, parrots are highly social animals who rely on their group to survive and raise chicks.

A scarlet macaw eats a small mango at its release site in Bolívar, Colombia. Credit: Daisy Dunne

Following these steps, parrots are taken deeper into the foundation’s forest reserve – away from loggers and poachers.

There, they spend some time in an enclosure getting acquainted with their new surroundings.

After this, the door to the cage is opened – allowing them to fly free, but return for shelter and food if they need. Eventually, the birds settle back into the wild.

Waiting list

In addition to their parrot rehabilitation programme, the charity built a series of nest boxes and installed them high in the tree canopy across the reserve.

Their continuous monitoring of the birds has shown that many of the former pets have started raising wild chicks.

The work is hugely rewarding, said Corina, but the charity currently has a waiting list that is “months long”, given the growing number of wild animals needing rehabilitation across Colombia.

Despite helping the authorities with their wild animal problem, the charity largely relies on private donations to continue, she said. The hope is to develop an eco-tourism model to make more revenue in the future, she added.

Watch, read, listen

CARBON CONSULTATIONS: The Diplomat explored whether local residents were properly consulted on a carbon-offsetting programme in Cambodia.

FISH FIGHTS: The Ghanaian Times examined the tensions surrounding marine conservation in the country and how it is unduly burdening small-scale fisherfolk.

DELTA WORK: Mongabay reported on how the world’s “great deltas” are sinking, leading to the loss of a “global food system”. 

LITHUANIA PEAT BOGS: The New York Times reported on Lithuanian efforts to restore peat bogs in order to “reinforce the border” and “lock away” carbon.

New science

• Coastal marshes are encroaching on uplands “nearly twice as fast” on agricultural land as they are on forestland, suggesting that agricultural practices are “accelerat[ing] the impacts of saltwater intrusion” | Nature Sustainability
• Fungi that cause diseases in plants will approximately double in abundance around the Antarctic Peninsula by 2100 under a moderate emissions scenario | Global Change Biology
• Conserving Ethiopia’s protected areas currently involves managing “trade-offs between nature and people” that are “central to whether global biodiversity commitments can be delivered” | Nature Ecology and Evolution

In the diary

• 20-22 May: Informal consultations of parties to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement | New York City
• 30 May-6 June: Meeting of the Global Environment Facility Assembly | Samarkand, Uzbekistan
• 31 May: Colombian presidential elections
• 8-18 June:Subsidiary body meetings of the UNFCCC | Bonn, Germany

Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne and Orla Dwyer.  Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org

The post Cropped 20 May 2026: Deforestation roadmap | Melanesian Ocean Summit | Returning pet parrots to the wild appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The grid operator urged states to develop rules to shield other ratepayers from data center-driven costs, but analysts said it remains unclear how a reliability auction’s costs could be allocated only to hyperscalers.

Toronto — KEVIN LOCKHART, director of the Buildings program at the Pembina Institute, and KARI HYDE, director of Customer Energy Solutions, made the following statement in response to the release of Power Smart 2.0, the largest conservation...